A comparison between porcine, ovine, and bovine intervertebral disc anatomy and single lamella annulus fibrosus tensile properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project aimed to compare gross anatomical measures and biomechanical properties of single lamellae from the annulus fibrosus of ovine and porcine lumbar vertebrae, and bovine tail vertebrae. The morphology of the vertebrae of these species differ significantly both from each other and from human, yet how these differences alter biomechanical properties is unknown. Geometric parameters measured in this study included: 1) absolute and relative intervertebral (IVD) and vertebral body height and 2) absolute and relative intervertebral disc (IVD) anterior-posterior (AP) and medial-lateral (ML) widths. Single lamella tensile properties included toe-region stress and stretch ratio, stiffness, and tensile strength. As expected, the bovine tail IVD revealed a more circular shape compared with both the ovine and porcine lumbar IVD. The bovine tail also had the largest IVD to vertebral body height ratio (due to having the highest absolute IVD height). Bovine tail lamellae were also found to be strongest and stiffest (in tension) while ovine lumbar lamellae were weakest and most compliant. Histological analysis revealed the greatest proportion of collagen in the bovine corroborating findings of increased strength and stiffness. The observed differences in anatomical shape, connective tissue composition, and tensile properties need to be considered when choosing an appropriate model for IVD research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".